The
Human Female Prostate and Its Relationship to the Popularized
Term, G-Spot
By Gary Schubach, Ed. D., A.C.S.

An interesting controversy has arisen over an article in
the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology by Dr.
Terence Hines entitled, “The G-Spot: A Modern Gynecologic
Myth.” Hines concludes: “the evidence is far
too weak to support the reality of the G-spot.” I
couldn’t disagree more.

Part of the trouble with the Hines article, as well as
the entire discussion concerning the Gräfenberg Spot,
popularly termed the “G-Spot,” is the lack of
agreement on its definition. In his article, Hines states
that Gräfenberg did not provide significant evidence
for the existence of the spot. Actually, in his writings,
Gräfenberg (1950) only uses the word “spot”
twice, and then solely to make the opposite point that “...there
is no spot (emphasis added) in the female body from which
sexual desire could not be aroused.” He states that,
in fact, “innumerable erotogenic spots (emphasis added)
are distributed all over the body, from where sexual satisfaction
can be elicited; these are so many that we can almost say
that there is no part of the female body which does not
give sexual response; the partner has only to find the erotogenic
zones.”

Gräfenberg does not refer to the G-spot as “a
small but allegedly highly sensitive area on the anterior
wall of the human vagina about a third of the way up from
the vaginal opening,” but to the “area”
or “zone” on the upper wall of the vagina through
which the prostate (aka Skene's glands and ducts) can be
accessed. In women, the prostate gland, while generally
smaller than the male prostate, also surrounds the urethra,
close to the urethral opening. The great sensitivity comes
not from what is on the upper wall of the vagina, but from
glands and ducts behind the vaginal wall

It should be clear from an unbiased reading of Gräfenberg's
paper that he is talking about the prostate (aka Skene's
glands) when he writes, “Analogous to the male urethra,
the female urethra also seems to be surrounded by erectile
tissues like the corpora cavernosa. In the course of sexual
stimulation, the female urethra begins to enlarge and can
be felt easily. It swells out greatly at the end of orgasm.
The most stimulating part is located at the posterior urethra,
where it arises from the neck of the bladder.”

The biggest problem I have with the Hines article, however,
is that he cites relevant articles that support the existence
of a female prostate gland as the so-called G- Spot, but
ends up concluding that it does not exist. Though he finds
the G-spot so hard to locate himself, he promises to discuss
Drs. Davidson, Darling and Conway-Welch 's acknowledgement
that the female prostate gland is indeed the G-Spot and,
then, never really does. Instead, he ends up making the
statement, “If the G-Spot does exist, it will certainly
be more than a system of glands and ducts. If an area of
tissue is highly sensitive, that sensitivity must be mediated
by nerve endings, not ducts.” Hines is correct but,
as already noted, the female prostate is not located on
the wall of the vagina, and the nerves that give the prostate
its sensation may be in the muscle coat around the glands
rather than in the glands themselves. Recent studies have
also suggested that the anterior wall of the vagina could
be more densely innervated than the posterior wall.

Further, in his evidence against the so called G-Spot,
Hines states that the “issue of female ejaculation
is relevant to the G-spot for two reasons. First, the two
are often considered together in the popular literature
with the strong implication that the reality of ejaculation
supports the reality of the G-spot. Second, some authors
mistake the presence of glands that may produce a female
ejaculate with the G-spot, (a topic discussed in detail
later)." However, he never discusses it in detail in
his article. Contrary to Hines’ assumptions, both
my own and other studies have shown conclusively that a
woman can reach orgasm by stimulation of the prostate though
the upper wall of the vagina which may or may not include
ejaculation. Similar to men, it is also possible for women
to have an ejaculation without prostate (G-Spot) stimulation.

I have no argument with Hines' point, “that manual
stimulation of the putative G-spot, resulted in real sexual
arousal, in no way demonstrates that the stimulated area
is anatomically different from other areas in the vagina.”
However, while citing various pathological studies, including
a 1948 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Hines omits at least seven authoritative pathological studies
that support the existence of a female prostate gland. From
the research of deGraff in 1672 to the recent work of Zaviacic,
there have been numerous studies that in some way support
the conclusion that, what has been called Skene’s
and/or paraurethral ducts and glands, are a homologue of
the male prostate.

Hines opined that there is lack of evidence in support
of female ejaculation. Yet, he overlooked Santamaría
who showed the presence of PSA in female urethral expulsions,
as well as my own doctoral research that showed differences
in the chemical composition of fluid obtained by catheterization
from the same woman's baseline urine specimen and a specimen
that was drained from her bladder prior to ejaculation.
His complaint about the insufficiencies of pre-1985 research
concerning the presence of acid phosphatase (PAP) also shows
a lack of awareness that forensic pathologists, due to PAP
occurring naturally in the vagina, long ago discredited
PAP detection as a certain prostatic marker.

Hines proposes that if women ejaculate a fluid that is
not urine or has non-urine constituents, it must be coming
from someplace other than the bladder. However, my study
showed, for the first time, what had been suggested by Goldberg
thirteen years earlier; namely, that ejaculatory fluid possibly
originates not from either the bladder or the urethral glands,
but from both.

I'm afraid that I also cannot agree with Dr. Hines’
observation that most popular books, and even textbooks,
recognize the existence of the G-Spot as the prevailing
medical or social paradigm. Such noted experts in the field
of human sexuality as Alfred Kinsey and Masters and Johnson,
dismissed female ejaculation as being an “erroneous
but widespread concept.” Masters and Johnson also
argued against the existence of the erogenous zone known
as the “G-spot” and steadfastly stood for the
premise that the *censored*oris alone was responsible for
triggering female orgasm.

Dr. Hines and I, however, completely agree that the existence
of the G-Spot is not just an issue of minor anatomical interest.
It is an area of enormous importance in terms of how millions
of women view their sexuality, and the amount of pleasure
and intimacy they can experience with their sexual partners.
If the evidence demonstrates the G-spot and female ejaculation
as components of natural sexual functioning, women can be
freed from guilt and shame about prostate (G-Spot) stimulation
and the expulsion of fluid during sex. In addition, Hines’
article exposes the need for health professionals to have
more education and training in Human Sexuality. Such knowledge
will help them better serve their patients. The current
debate demonstrates why Dr. Milan Zaviacic’s medical
school textbook, The Human Female Prostate: From Vestigial
Skene’s Glands and Ducts to Woman’s Functional
Prostate, should be required medical school reading.

In conclusion, this article has demonstrated that the term
“spot” is not a useful metaphor to describe
the anatomical basis of the female erogenous experience
of stimulation of the upper vaginal wall. The term only
contributes to the confusion. A more accurate and descriptive
term, such as the female prostate or prostata feminina,
should make it easier for everyone to understand the issues
involved and to better serve women’s health needs.
In fact, the Federative International Committee on Anatomical
Terminology has recently agreed to adopt the term female
prostate (or prostata feminina), implying function as well
as form in its definitive Histology Terminology.

It is clear that more research is needed to answer the
questions past studies have raised, but it is my hope that
the foregoing discussion has illuminated some important
issues for further exploration. For example, a noteworthy
outcome to this discussion might be the search for scientific
consensus concerning whether the female prostate is indeed
the illusive G-Spot. Specifically, it would be valuable
to analyze urethral expulsions during sexual arousal for
the presence of PSA in comparison with baseline and other
urine specimens from the same female subject. Additionally,
all urethral expulsions could be examined for possible evidence
of hormonal alterations as a result of sexual arousal. The
physiological process by which the bladder sphincter may
involuntarily open as a result of stimulation of the female
prostate (G-Spot) also warrants further study.

Gary Schubach, Ed.D., A.C.S. is an internationally-known
sex educator, lecturer, writer and group facilitator. A
graduate of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human
Sexuality, he now holds a faculty position there as Associate
Professor of Human Sexuality. His landmark doctoral research
project in "Female Ejaculation and the G-Spot"
greatly advanced the awareness of female sexual issues in
the medical and academic communities. He currently leads
groups that counsel and train men to more fully honor and
please themselves and their partners. For further information
on Dr. Gary Schubach and the products/services he offers,
please visit his website at http://www.doctorg.com, Dr.Schubach's
personal email is: DoctorG@DoctorG.com.

About
Cynthia
Cynthia Lamborne is a leader in the field of
sacred sexuality and Tantra. Her background and training
includes: comprehensive study with several Tantric Masters;
extensive travel in Egypt, India and Nepal; 30 years of
training and experience with thousands of men and women
as an intimacy coach and workshop facilitator; and teaching
Transcendental Meditation for 10 years.More

Disclaimer:
The Information and products distributed by Nectar Products™
& Cynthia Lamborne are not intended to diagnose or prescribe
in any way. Nectar Products™ takes no responsibility
for your experience in using them.